As Elon Musk steps back from his role heading the so-called “department of government efficiency” (Doge), many experts on government operations complain that Doge has done nothing to improve the quality of services the government provides to the American people.
“Doge is not offering any solid claims that it has improved services in any way,” said Donald Moynihan, a professor of public policy at the University of Michigan. “Rather, it has made the quality of some government services worse.”
Musk, the world’s richest man, was appointed to run the government efficiency drive by Donald Trump in January and as a “special government employee” was barred from working for more than 180 days for the administration. He also has his own business woes to attend to.
But on his way out of the White House, Musk has boasted that Doge has achieved $150bn in savings, although many budget experts question the accuracy of that figure. Musk has repeatedly made exaggerated and erroneous claims about savings, which are a fraction of Musk’s goal of $1tn in cuts.
Moynihan and other public policy experts said it was unfortunate that Musk and Doge took the hard-charging focus of profit-maximizing business executives – of aggressively seeking to cut jobs and payroll – instead of adopting a broader focus aimed at making government more efficient while improving services.
Martha Gimbel, executive director of the Yale Budget Lab, said Musk evidently has little interest in making services better. “They were the ‘department of government slash and burn’,” Gimbel said. “There doesn’t seem to be an approach to dig in on places where government services could really be improved. Any improvement in government services takes time. You have to invest. You have to build it out. You have to figure out how to fix it.”
Asked whether Musk and Doge had improved any government services, Gimbel burst out in laughter. “No,” she said. “There has clearly been a degeneration of government services.”
Public policy experts and members of the public have pointed to numerous ways that government services have deteriorated due to Doge’s cuts. There have been longer waiting times to get appointments at veterans’ hospitals, longer waits when people call the Internal Revenue Service, longer lines at social security offices. The departure of many highly experienced social security employees has led to workers with far less training giving advice on benefits.
At a White House news conference on 1 May, Musk defended Doge’s accomplishments. “In the grand scheme of things, I think we’ve been effective. Not as effective as I’d like. I think we could be more effective,” Musk said. “But we’ve made progress.”
Musk acknowledged that his $1tn goal had been far harder to reach than he had anticipated. “It’s sort of, how much pain is the cabinet and the Congress willing to take?” he said. “It can be done, but it requires dealing with a lot of complaints.”
The White House did not respond to the Guardian’s questions about the deterioration of some government services or to the Guardian’s request for any examples of how Doge has improved services.
Gimbel said that Americans don’t realize that many government services will get worse in coming months as the tens of thousands of Doge-ordered job cuts play out. “Things will definitely get worse,” she said. For instance, the administration has far to go in carrying out its plan to cut 80,000 employees in the Department of Veterans Affairs.
While many public policy experts say Trump and Musk wildly exaggerate in their claims that there is huge waste, fraud and abuse in government, Gimbel said there is of course waste in government. “There is waste, and you can go after it,” she said. “People who have been in government know where those places are. There is a ton of tech that needs modernizing. Doge doesn’t seem interested in that. There’s a lot of Medicare and Medicaid overbilling. Doge doesn’t seem interested in that either. What you have is a relatively expensive exercise in slash-and-burn that sometime in the future will cost a lot to fix.”
Max Stier, president of the Partnership for Public Service, a non-profit research group, said that many business executives – including Jack Welch, the former General Electric CEO famed for cost-cutting and increasing profits – would be unhappy with Musk’s quick and brutal cuts. Stier complained that Musk and his team of twentysomething tech whizzes made steep cuts while knowing little about an agency’s operations or about the qualifications and responsibilities of the people they fired or pushed out.
after newsletter promotion
“Jack Welch would be appalled by the approach that Doge has taken,” Stier said. “It’s not actually about cost-cutting. It’s about capability destroyed. Jack Welch would never, ever have fired people without having a real understanding about the way the organization worked and about the qualities of people who were being fired. This is an arbitrary exercise that has moved out employees who are often by far the most qualified rather than the least qualified.”
Stier noted that Trump has described Doge as an exercise in cost-cutting and organizational improvement. “That’s just not the case,” Stier said. “It’s hard to offer any rational basis for the decisions that are being made. There certainly aren’t any improvements that the American public will see.”
“It’s burning down government capability,” he continued. “It’s unquestionably clear that they are firing people willy-nilly and are disrupting government services without any understanding of the consequences or concern about the consequences. It’s a break-it-is-to-fix-it mentality. It isn’t a mentality that predominates in Silicon Valley. It’s sheer reckless behavior in the public sector because real people get hurt.”
Musk’s claim of $150bn in savings is a vast overestimate because it fails to include the considerable costs of Doge’s moves, said Stier. Stier’s group estimates that as a result of firings, rehirings, severance pay, paid leave and lost productivity involving more than 100,000 workers, Doge’s maneuvers will cost taxpayers $135bn this fiscal year. And several public policy experts said the increased wait times and hassles the public will face due to Doge’s cuts should also be subtracted from the $150bn.
Moynihan said Musk has precisely the wrong vision for someone tasked with making government more efficient. “His vision is that there is no way that government employees can produce anything of value,” Moynihan said. “So the idea of tools that makes government services better is completely alien to the Musk mindset.
“I think he believes that nothing public employees do has any real value, that they are not capable employees and therefore cutting them will do no harm,” Moynihan added. “It’s a vision that doesn’t understand what public services are, why they exist and how they benefit people.”
Moynihan faulted Musk for gutting one of the government’s main efforts to use technology to improve services and efficiency. He also criticized Musk for helping kill Direct File, a free and user-friendly way for people to report and file their taxes.
Liz Shuler, president of the AFL-CIO, the main US union federation, said Doge’s cuts will hurt workers. She pointed to the sharp cuts at the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, saying that that agency, for instance, does important research to ensure that firefighters’ personal protective equipment is safe as possible.
“There’s this notion that Doge is just cutting line items on a spreadsheet. It’s hurting real lives and real people,” Shuler said. “They’ve treated federal workers with blatant disregard and have been nothing short of dehumanizing and insulting toward them.”
Gimbel of the Yale Budget Lab warned of another downside to Doge’s cuts. “Part of what government does is mitigate risk,” she said. “Take food safety. Government inspectors decrease the risk that you will get listeria or salmonella. But when they reduce the number of food inspectors, will you get listeria or salmonella tomorrow? No. Will it probably increase the chances of people getting listeria and salmonella over the next five years? Yes.”
